B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum

Exploring Albert Rijksbaron's book, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction, to see how it would need to be adapted for Koine Greek. Much of the focus will be on finding Koine examples to illustrate the same points Rijksbaron illustrates with Classical examples, and places where Koine Greek diverges from Classical Greek.

Jonathan Robie wrote:The verb οἴχομαι should probably be replaced with a different verb, this one isn't in BDAG. Any other issues?

It's a good Koine verb, so keep it.** For Greek Morphology we used an LXX example:Ἰακωβ δὲ ἔδωκεν τῷ Ησαυ ἄρτον καὶ ἕψεμα φακοῦ, καὶ ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔπιεν καὶ ἀναστὰς ᾤχετο. Naturally, it has no aorist stem and was alphabetized under the continuative stem. The index listed .depart ________ οἴχεσθαιand.gone, be ____ οἴχεσθαι A synonym ἀπεῖναι 'be absent is also defective, though οἴχεσθαι adds the inceptive sense in its lexical state of affairs (+having left).

As mentioned, the notes for for clarification not for rewriting Rijksbaron.

** PS: the Koine and Classical periods of the Greek language were an integrated whole and the language cannot be cleanly separated into two. One can only point out forms or features that were added or that dropped out of the whole language. A note about the organic connectedness of the two dialects is probably necessary because so many students approach the GNT as if it were a separate language from "classical Greek". I have even heard this used as a 'fig leaf' to cover an inability to read outside the NT. The Greeks were aware of changes taking place, but they did not consider these changes a different language, and the second Sophistic elitists re-asserted the Attic forms for 'proper form'.

If Rijksbaron's goal is to exemplify a verb that lacks an aorist stem, what's wrong with εἶναι (εἰμί)?? That would be a better and more common example, wouldn't it?

RandallButh wrote:As mentioned, the notes for for clarification not for rewriting Rijksbaron.

Yes, we have no authority to rewrite Rijksbaron, but we can comment/discuss.

RandallButh wrote:** PS: the Koine and Classical periods of the Greek language were an integrated whole and the language cannot be cleanly separated into two. One can only point out forms or features that were added or that dropped out of the whole language. A note about the organic connectedness of the two dialects is probably necessary because so many students approach the GNT as if it were a separate language from "classical Greek". I have even heard this used as a 'fig leaf' to cover an inability to read outside the NT. The Greeks were aware of changes taking place, but they did not consider these changes a different language, and the second Sophistic elitists re-asserted the Attic forms for 'proper form'.

Yeah, the difference in attitude is amazing to me. Some linguists have no compunction about looking to, say, Hungarian for insight into how Greek works, while some NT exegesis refuse to consider a usage in Euripides, say, as evidence.